"Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@timpanogas.com> writes:
>
> So what's wrong with calling fsync() after write() then for Oracle --
> this should work -- yes?
I would expect O_SYNC to be a bit faster than fsync: fsync has to figure
out what to flush, in O_SYNC it is implicit and already known.
At least in ext2 fsync is relatively costly CPU wise [there were real
error reports about that in the past], while O_SYNC is much cheaper.
This is now especially true because O_SYNC in 2.3 does not actually
flush. This of course needs to be changed.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:27 EST